List of Things Batman Returns got Right/Wrong

[DocLathropBrown]

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

yeah, yeah. Just because I do not sing "Praise the lord! Everyone is true to Batman just in a different way!" it's a waste of time. yeah, yeah, yeah. And I am fair! It's just not really difficult to argue against a movie where the superficial parts (Batman being a guy called Bruce Wayne, having a cave and so on) are there. But in the essence he doesn't act like Batman, he is not Batman. And almost no other character is like his comic counterpart. The only one I can think of is the Joker.

How do you define what the REAL Batman is when the character has consistatly evolved throughout the ages? He's almost seventy and he's been interpretted (in the comics) over ten ways!

So, which Batman is Burton not true to? Could it be that it's accurate to another one?

It's not baseless idiocy to say "each was true in a different way". There's so many interpretations in the comics alone that no adaptation has been off the mark completely. And to say otherwise is ignorant.

Your arguments ONLY amount to "Burton didn't do Batman the way I wanted." And that's all. No matter what you try to claim, your posts tell otherwise.

[El Payaso]

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

I'm not.

Your writing seems to say otherwise. This very morning I catch a flaming spam-post of yours with gratuitous Burton-bashing that was healthily removed.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

Funny enough that I am not even a Batman Begins Nolan fanboy. I've read Batman since the mid-80s, before Burton ever took a Batman comic in his hands.

Exaplain me how the earlier you read a comic makes you any better about understanding the character. Or worse, better about bashing some vision without much of a background.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

I don't care what other people say!

If you keep posting in here and replying to Doc, it is clear – once again – that your writing is not reflecting your statements about yourself.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

The changes made for Batman Begins were just there to fit the story. The essence of the characters was still right(er than Burton's take). Burton's Batman is a brooding psychopath, Nolan's Batman is a hero who gives his life to save other people.

This is a matter of composition.

The changes made for Batman 89 were just there to fit the story. They in fact are.

The essence of the characters was still right. To the Bob Kane era. The original Batman.

Burton's Batman is a hero who gives his life to save other people. True. Even when strictly speaking, none of the Batman versions have “given their lives” since they never died, but risked their lifes for sure.

Now, Burton’s Batman is not a psycho, but only carries the natural trauma of watching his parents die. That’s what puts the dark in the character.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

Batman Returns was not about Batman. Yes, when you get superficial you can still say "It's a guy with batears". Yes, yes, yes.

Batears, batsuit, bat-weapons, batmobile, his parents were killed as a result he becomes an avenger. Penguin, Catwoman. Sounds a lot like Batman, the problem is that you wrote “yes’s” instead of getting the list right.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

A Batman who shots around with H&K firearms would still be Batman in some people's minds.

It still is.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

- The Penguin being a freak, raised by penguins??? That's stupid.

Oh yes. What does the Penguin character have to do with deformity and a penguin-like aspect? Nothing.

Once they even created this character who was raised by apes and became a jungle hero. Stupid, my man. Stupid. I won’t tell yopu why is stupid though, since you didn’t bother to explain your own point yourself.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

- Non-existant story and plot, just bits thrown around

Max Schreck, a greedy Gothamite industrial man wants to create a power plant just as a way to steal Gotham City’s power. He’s blackmailed by a deformed man called Oswald Cobblepot who wants to take advatage fo Schreck’s power to have a personal revenge on Gotham city. Schreck’s secretary, Selina Kyle, finds out his plans and he attempts to kill her. The experience makes Selina goes nuts and she adopts Catwoman’s personality. Bruce Wayne is trying to stop Schreck’s plans since he suspects there’s something else and as Batman, he suspects about the Penguin too, since it seems he and Schreck are accomplices. In the way he knows catwoman and falls in love with her at the same time that Bruce fell for Selina Kyle. Penguin and Catwoman meet and plan to destroy Batman’s reputation and frame him, so they both get rid of him, who’s interfering with thir plans (having a revenge on Gotham and Schreck, respectively).

I believe that not getting the plot is not the same as the plot not existing.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

- Penguin running for mayor? The Adam West show did that better.

No, it didn’t. In West’s show it was all about the humour of the situation. In Burton’s movie there was a criticism about how compassion and affection can serve as deception in politics.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

- The whole movie is there to please Burton's ego.

That’s a mere assumption of yours. You can’t prove it and it’s just about how much hatred you hold for the director, no more.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

It's not about Batman, really. That guy isn't Batman.

Yes he is. He looks, sounds and acts like Batman.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

It is a short man with a deranged minds who blows up people.

Oh please. And “Batman in Batman Begins is Patrick Bateman with a rubber suit”? And “what about Jim Morrison as Batman”?

Effort man. Effort.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

Yeah, yeah, the original Bob Kane stuff.

Yeah, reality once again spoiling the fun for you.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

the guy there showed any mannerism of KeatonBatman. Yeah right.

I can agree with that bit.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

If I want to see the end30s Batman I watch "The Shadow", that's more Batman than Batman Returns, or better "Psychoman Returns With Depth"!

No, it’s not. That’d be The Shadow.

But you wouldn’t do wrong with posting in a Shadow board instead of here.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

I am versed enough. I am much older than you,

Again, what does age have to do with anything.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

I saw Batman's decline from a cool guy into a nutjob. I watched the Batman (1989) movie in the first week it came out. I experienced the hype.

Just like me.

I still don’t get what’s the part where I should go ‘Whoa, this guy has made a valid point!’

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

Batman is a COOL GUY. A guy you WANT to be.

I see age doesn’t warrantee to get the character. At. All.

Yes, Batman is all about the happiness of being a hero. I so want to have a life-lasting trauma because someone killed my parents in front of me when I was a kid and I so want to spend my life fighting criminals as an obssession. How cool is that.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

A guy you COULD be (but in reality you can't, but you can think that). That was a constant factor. From 1939 to the mid-90s.

Not at all.

Batman’s incarnations (even Schumacher’s) have emphasized what a nightmare to be Batman is. A life having nightmares, a life of loneliness, without a woman you can love, no normal life, no happiness, etc etc.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

But then (and in the Burton movies) Batman became a pathetic loser,

Far from being pathetic, he achieves his goals. Which makes him the opposite of a loser.

Maybe it’s time for you to purchase a good dictionary.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

a guy who never came to terms with his past. Yeah right.

Exactly. That’s Batman’s motivation.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

Before it was only a motiviation, then it became madness.

It’s obssession.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

Yeah, but Sam Hamm thought of Batman as an insane guy, so what is to wonder about those movies?

I can’t care less what hamm thinks. He thought Batman’s wearing a cape was stupid.

But the movies worked wonderfully.

[Parents-Gun-Bat]

Originally Posted by Cain

Yes the computer did it for him because it doesn't take a person to operate a computer and input information. You see the meeting between him and Schreck he clearly goes "Gotham City has a power surplus so I'm wondering, what's your angle?" he knew there was something fishy there.

With the Penguin he looked at old articles that stated that some children who went to the red triangle circus ended up kidnapped and missing and the only one who wasn't questioned by authorities was the aquatic bird boy because he dissapeared before the law could reach him. Also he sees the Penguin at the hall of records looking through birth certificates and jotting down names and tells Alfred "I think he knows who his parents are". He knew there was something to look into there as well.

Again, NOTHING of this is something special.

Superman is my second favorite fictional character of all time like Batman I appreciate all the interpretations. Also I will point out that writers like Grant Morisson and Geoff Johns who have been considered by fanboys as 2 writers who really do understand Superman had positive things to say about Byrne's MOS. Hell that's one of my top interpretations as well. Not faithful to the essence of the character? are you kidding? he was still a self less hero who valued the lives of innocents above all others. He was still a farm boy who loved his parents and hometown dearly.

Superman is not a farmboy. He grew up on a farm but grew out! The "Superman is just a stupid farmboy" approach was stupid by itself!

Just because those themes were presented differently doesn't mean they're not there. Actually I'd say he did more for the character than most before him as he clearly also defined that Clark Kent, Kal-El and Superman are all 3 different parts of the same whole and in turn that made Supes and his mythology even more well rounded. There is a reason that lasted as canon for over 20 years.

Byrne made Superman into Clark Kent, a yuppie WASP who had problems with his self-image ("Am I really good enough to be earth's greatest hero?"). But that's Peter Parker, not Superman. Superman doesn't share our problems. He is what we want and should be, not what we are. That's what makes Superman unique. He is a hero, he just is. Without compromises. You know "Clark Kent loves Lois Lane, Lois Lane loves Superman but Superman loves Clark Kent" - Maggins.

He even called his whole Kryptonian heritage "meaningless"! That I call "not getting the essence" of the characters. Byrne tried to reflect his own life into Superman, you know being the guy from Canada but in fact being a true American now.

[Mr. Socko]

Excellent post El.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

Superman or Batman?

Burton even wanted to turn Superman into some gothic cyborg. That's Burton's vision!

"The essence of Batman".......................what is it?

You say Burton didn't get it, so explain what it is.

[El Payaso]

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

DocLathriop is 21. He would've been what... 3 years old when Burton's first Batman movie came out!

Yes. And since video tapes and DVD players haven’t been invented yet, he simply hasn’t seen the movie after he was 3. When you got a point you got a point

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

So he cannot judge the way Batman was before.

No, since comic books are a medium that doesn’t survive the pass of time.

That’s also why historians can’t get how was the world before the were born.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

Of course he can read the old stories in a "retroactive" way, but he would still be spoiled by the modern comics.

Yes, if he was only older he’d be able to be more able to appreciate things.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

Where was Batman a detective in Burton's movies? He wasn't.

Decoding Joker’s poison pattern. Researching about Penguin and his true plans.

Maybe you want to call tech service for your dvd player since it seems it’s skipping some scenes.

Wait. I forgot there are no such thing as dvd players.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

No, it's not. It's just an overlooked truth. Judging the past is always difficult.

You mean, it is for you and therefore you think it’s the same for everyone else?

This is no judging XIX Century, just 30 years old comics that are still there to be seen and read.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

And the Batman was never like Burton's Batman.

Kane Batman was. Miller Batman was.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

That's a fact.

It’s a mere opinion. An opinion that can be refuted with a little information.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

Hell, people like Frank Miller, Matt Wagner and John Byrne didn't like the Burton movies at all.

We’re all eager to see the links.

[DocLathropBrown]

Parents-Gun-Bat argues as well as a box of donuts.

He hasn't argued anything close to a fact yet. He just argues his opinion. Which, I don't think is intentional.

Byrne did something different with Superman. Prior to Byrne, Superman wasn't full of very much depth.

If you do Superman the way you claim you prefur, he's a boring character. Donner was really the first to add any real depth to Superman, IMO. How do you make him interesting? You explore the humanity that he WOULD have from being raised in the midwest.

Arguing like a box of donuts. That must be so awesome. To take things only at face value.

[Parents-Gun-Bat]

Originally Posted by El Payaso

Now, Burton’s Batman is not a psycho, but only carries the natural trauma of watching his parents die. That’s what puts the dark in the character.

But the comic Bruce Wayne didn't have any traumas anymore. The ended definitely (and perhaps before) when Joe Chill died. "i have not been back to the cemetary since then", you know ("THe Untold Legends of the Batman")

Yes he is. He looks, sounds and acts like Batman.

Being 5'9'', body like a boy and a voice that's sore?

I see age doesn’t warrantee to get the character. At. All.

Yes, Batman is all about the happiness of being a hero. I so want to have a life-lasting trauma because someone killed my parents in front of me when I was a kid and I so want to spend my life fighting criminals as an obssession. How cool is that.



Not at all.

Batman’s incarnations (even Schumacher’s) have emphasized what a nightmare to be Batman is. A life having nightmares, a life of loneliness, without a woman you can love, no normal life, no happiness, etc etc.

AGAIN! You confuse the modern Batman from the last decade with the time back then! The murder of his parents may be tragic, but he got over it some time later and gave his life a real meaning. You know. Not like taking your money and have a nice life, but to do something good. THe whole "Batman is TEH INSANE!" just started later to creep into the comic lore. Before he was in fact a cool guy you wanted to be. Does anyone like to be Keaton's Batman? I doubt it.

Exactly. That’s Batman’s motivation.

It’s obssession.

Again! It was not! It was not! The obsession thing first showed up with DKR, BUT this was special because he betrayed the oath and saw the world decline. So he felt guilty for it. But not when he was young. Ask people like Steve Engelhart if Batman is insane.

I can’t care less what hamm thinks. He thought Batman’s wearing a cape was stupid.

Yes, yes, the guy who called the things Batman does a "sick obsession". The guy who wrote Batman (1989).

[Parents-Gun-Bat]

Kane Batman was. Miller Batman was.

The Kane Batman was a much funnier guy. And it was so much like Miller's Batman that he didn't like him and was actually only pleased with Batman Begins, which is a much more tame approach to Batman than is own style.

[El Payaso]

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

To the poison code: The computer did it for him.

I encourage you to call tech support for your dvd player. It seems it’s showing non existant scenes, since I cannot remember where did they show the computer doing that alone without any Batman’s brain intervention.

Maybe the computer woke up one day and said ‘Ok, I’ll stop Joker’s poisoning. I’ll collect the data and will work on this while Mr. Wayne is sleeping’?

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

And where did he find out the truth about Max Shreck's plans?

We don’t see where but he certainly did research. Bruce Wayne went stright to Schreck’s office with a lot of information that made Max get nervous.

You really should call tech support for that random scene-skipping problem of your dvd player.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

He didn't even find out the plan to kidnap the firstborn,

He’s no fortune teller either.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

No, there was nothing in those movies I would let count for detective work.

Sadly there’s no tech support for human denial of truth.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

You know, like investigating the crime scene and other things.

Clichés are not necessary to depict detective work.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

So, show me more about this World's Greatest Detective with Depth!

I guess the more they show you the more pleasure in ignoring it you can get.

[Parents-Gun-Bat]

Originally Posted by Mr. Socko

Excellent post El.


"The essence of Batman".......................what is it?

You say Burton didn't get it, so explain what it is.

BATMAN:
A guy who starts a life of crimefighting to prevent others from having the same fate he has.

KEATON-BATMAN:
A guy who is sad all the time and who compensates his loss by blowing up people.

[DocLathropBrown]

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

But the comic Bruce Wayne didn't have any traumas anymore. The ended definitely (and perhaps before) when Joe Chill died. "i have not been back to the cemetary since then", you know ("THe Untold Legends of the Batman")

That's pre-Crisis. You thought you'd win with that one, didn't you?

Burton's material comes directly from 1939, the 1970s and the 1980s. In ALL of those era, he was moping about his parents, however little (Well, 1939 aside). With stories like "There is No Hope in Crime Alley" and "To Kill a Legend" from the pre-Crisis 70s in particular.

Burton's Batman takes place after the Crisis, so it isn't necessarily able to be hold into question with the pre-Crisis "Untold Legend" story. At least, not in the way you argue.

Being 5'9'', body like a boy and a voice that's sore?

Keaton's 5'11". How do you know what his physique look like? We never see in the films. So how do you know that Keaton's Wayne (NOT Keaton, mind you) is weakly formed? And a gravelly voice would scare criminals, don'tcha know?

Your arguments are getting weaker and weaker. You're doing more stretching than Mr. Fantastic!

AGAIN! You confuse the modern Batman from the last decade with the time back then! The murder of his parents may be tragic, but he got over it some time later and gave his life a real meaning. You know. Not like taking your money and have a nice life, but to do something good. THe whole "Batman is TEH INSANE!" just started later to creep into the comic lore. Before he was in fact a cool guy you wanted to be. Does anyone like to be Keaton's Batman? I doubt it.

There is nothing insane about Keaton's Batman. Not in the atypical sense like you wish it was to help your argument. He's just compelled to fight crime and he does it in a Bat suit. The ONLY thing Hamm ever meant by saying "he's basically insane" is that he doesn't realize what he's doing seems crazy. That's ALL.

In your attempts to emulate Mr. Fantastic, you're trying to spin things your way.

Again! It was not! It was not!

Don't lose your cool because he proved you wrong! Think like Mr. Freeze.

The obsession thing first showed up with DKR, BUT this was special because he betrayed the oath and saw the world decline. So he felt guilty for it. But not when he was young. Ask people like Steve Engelhart if Batman is insane.

The obsession angle has been questioned in the comics ever since the 1970s.

You know, when they started to explore the character.

Yes, yes, the guy who called the things Batman does a "sick obsession". The guy who wrote Batman (1989).

Wow. So we're not supposed to explore the depth of a character? We're not supposed to make them interesting by doing things never done before? We're not allowed to flesh out the material and make it intelligent, or go beyond the obvious?

You have a severe inability to detect depth.

[DocLathropBrown]

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

BATMAN:
A guy who starts a life of crimefighting to prevent others from having the same fate he has.

KEATON-BATMAN:
A guy who is sad all the time and who compensates his loss by blowing up people.

Did Keaton's Batman start a life of crime fighting? Yes.

Did he prevent others from having the same fate he had? Yes.

You = Fail.

Nice try. Maybe you'll clean up at the Showcase Showdown?

[Mr. Socko]

Originally Posted by El Payaso

I encourage you to call tech support for your dvd player. It seems it’s showing non existant scenes, since I cannot remember where did they show the computer doing that alone without any Batman’s brain intervention.

Maybe the computer woke up one day and said ‘Ok, I’ll stop Joker’s poisoning. I’ll collect the data and will work on this while Mr. Wayne is sleeping’?

LOL

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

BATMAN:
A guy who starts a life of crimefighting to prevent others from having the same fate he has.

That precisely describes Keaton's Batman.

KEATON-BATMAN:
A guy who is sad all the time and who compensates his loss by blowing up people.

How was he sad all the time? Are you next going to bring up the hermit stuff? He was a rich playboy and philanthropist. The scenes of Bruce alone in the bat-cave are terrifically acted by Keaton, his inner struggle was shown simply through the use of his eyes. I was able to learn more about Wayne from the subtle expressions of Keaton than I could of Goyer's 10 minute monologues about being frightened by bats.

Keaton's Batman killed only when necessary, just as Bob Kane's Batman did. If it meant saving several innocent lives, then yes, Keaton's Batman wouldn't hesitate to blow up a murderer. It was simply staying true to the original comics, no? Burton uses the Kane-era comics as inspiration and gets bashed for it, but Nolan does it and receives much praise for bringing the characters back to their roots

[Parents-Gun-Bat]

Originally Posted by DocLathropBrown

That's pre-Crisis. You thought you'd win with that one, didn't you?

Burton's material comes directly from 1939, the 1970s and the 1980s. In ALL of those era, he was moping about his parents, however little (Well, 1939 aside). With stories like "There is No Hope in Crime Alley" and "To Kill a Legend" from the pre-Crisis 70s in particular.

Those are TWO(!) stories. These are moments of melancholy. Thinking about the old times and how everything COULD have been. Not what they made Batman later: "Sitting depressed, lonely and brooding with weltschmerz in his batcave, out in Gotham he stands on the rooftops like a demon to bring pain to the evildoers to get his vengeance that could never be fulfilled" I mean the 70s guy who could actually smile and have fun and didn't think it's life is so bad.

Burton's Batman takes place after the Crisis, so it isn't necessarily able to be hold into question with the pre-Crisis "Untold Legend" story. At least, not in the way you argue.

Terms like "post-crisis" and "pre-crisis" DON'T work for Batman, because his portrayal was the same before Year One and after Year One. In 89 he was still the same guy who sometimes talked to civilians and walked around in BROAD DAYLIGHT!

Keaton's 5'11". How do you know what his physique look like? We never see in the films. So how do you know that Keaton's Wayne (NOT Keaton, mind you) is weakly formed? And a gravelly voice would scare criminals, don'tcha know?

His physique was the reason for that awful rubber suits. They should've got Tom Selleck, he could have worn a more faithful costume. Yeah, they didn't want to make a movie about a guy with a big chin and a broad chest, wasn't that what Burton said? So why did he do the movie? THat is what Batman is.

Your arguments are getting weaker and weaker. You're doing more stretching than Mr. Fantastic!

My arguments are as "weak" as yours. You are defending what you like and I am attacking what I dislike. The guys who like the movie are on your side. That's the way every discuission goes. And in the end we all have still the same opinion.

There is nothing insane about Keaton's Batman. Not in the atypical sense like you wish it was to help your argument. He's just compelled to fight crime and he does it in a Bat suit. The ONLY thing Hamm ever meant by saying "he's basically insane" is that he doesn't realize what he's doing seems crazy. That's ALL.

He was a strange human being. It's right - we can't really say if he is insane - because we - hardly - do know things about him. But that's because it's DEEP, I know!

In your attempts to emulate Mr. Fantastic, you're trying to spin things your way.


Don't lose your cool because he proved you wrong! Think like Mr. Freeze.

The obsession angle has been questioned in the comics ever since the 1970s.

You know, when they started to explore the character.

It's when that psychobabble started, yes. But the answer for Batman's motivation is simple: He IS a good guy. I am not saying that these "exploring" things were bad. But just went to far. Batman became insane, Superman became dumb (HEY! Why doesn't that dumb guy end war on earth!), Green Arrow became a Punisher-like guy.

Wow. So we're not supposed to explore the depth of a character? We're not supposed to make them interesting by doing things never done before? We're not allowed to flesh out the material and make it intelligent, or go beyond the obvious?

Serial superhero fiction is not real the best ground for such experiments. That is the field for works like "Watchmen". Serial superheroes should be more treated like fairy tales and mythology characters.

You have a severe inability to detect depth.

What depth is for some wannabe intellectuals is often just pretentious crap to other people.

[David Rice]

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

No, it's not. It's just an overlooked truth. Judging the past is always difficult. And the Batman was never like Burton's Batman. That's a fact. Hell, people like Frank Miller, Matt Wagner and John Byrne didn't like the Burton movies at all.

How is Judging the past always difficult? This is comics, not history. All you have to do is read them.

No, you are very wrong sir. Batman was like Burton at one time.

How do you know they didn't like them? Do you have some interviews to back that up?

[SHADOWBAT69]

I still love how new posters come on here stating how Burtons Batman and Schumachers Batman is nothing like the "true" character.

BoF is down the street and around the corner.

[Parents-Gun-Bat]

Originally Posted by David Rice

How is Judging the past always difficult? This is comics, not history. All you have to do is read them.

Just an example: Today a lot of people think that Batman is totally obsessed and insane. But back then he wasn't. But when people read those old comics they have this "new" take in mind. So it's difficult.

No, you are very wrong sir. Batman was like Burton at one time.

Like Burton? A goth? No, the early-Bob Kane Batman is something else.

How do you know they didn't like them? Do you have some interviews to back that up?

It is a well known fact that Frank Miller disliked Batman(89).
For Byrne you can visit his website and read the FAQ (or even ask him about this in his board)
For Matt Wagner there is something on wikipedia for "Batman Returns".
I bet Neal Adams didn't like them either.

A LOT of comic book writer thought that Burton did it wrong. Those movies aren't really loved by the comic book scene.

[Mr. Socko]

Batman Returns is 1000x greater than Dark Knight Strikes Again.

[El Payaso]

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

yeah, yeah. Just because I do not sing "Praise the lord! Everyone is true to Batman just in a different way!" it's a waste of time. yeah, yeah, yeah.

It’s more your hilarious misconception of the character as the evidence of Burton’s “wrong vision.”

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

And I am fair!

Your actions keep contradicting your words. I suggest to stop defining yourself with words only. Remember that is “what you doooooooooooooooooo...” etc etc

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

It's just not really difficult to argue against a movie where the superficial parts (Batman being a guy called Bruce Wayne, having a cave and so on) are there. But in the essence he doesn't act like Batman, he is not Batman. And almost no other character is like his comic counterpart. The only one I can think of is the Joker.

And Catwoman. And the Penguin is so much better than the comics counterparter that I can’t care for being accurate to details in that case.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

But the comic Bruce Wayne didn't have any traumas anymore. The ended definitely (and perhaps before) when Joe Chill died. "i have not been back to the cemetary since then", you know ("THe Untold Legends of the Batman")

Bruce Wayne has been told to suffer from nightmares in 1990’s comics. Besides, that kind of traumas, specially if you keep feeding it with obssession, don’t die just like that. No matter what the comics could have done, it’s still a very interesting side of the character.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

Being 5'9'', body like a boy and a voice that's sore?

By just watching the movie your picky considerations vanish. He doesn’t look short at all, same way Christopher Reeve doesn’t look as skinny as he was.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

AGAIN! You confuse the modern Batman from the last decade with the time back then! The murder of his parents may be tragic, but he got over it some time later and gave his life a real meaning. You know. Not like taking your money and have a nice life, but to do something good. THe whole "Batman is TEH INSANE!" just started later to creep into the comic lore. Before he was in fact a cool guy you wanted to be. Does anyone like to be Keaton's Batman? I doubt it.

Thing is it’s still the most interesting part of the character. As a good director, burton knew what elements from the many Batman eras to keep.

Does anyone like to be Hamlet? Or Hulk? I doubt. But what a hell of characters they are.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

Again! It was not! It was not! The obsession thing first showed up with DKR, BUT this was special because he betrayed the oath and saw the world decline. So he felt guilty for it. But not when he was young. Ask people like Steve Engelhart if Batman is insane.

Nobody except you has said Batman is insane.

Now let’s ask anyone if Batman is obssessive. Let’s ask anyone if he keeps ignoring Alfred’s tips of being a little more normal or having a sandwich before going out because his mind is too obssessed with defeating the enemy.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

The Kane Batman was a much funnier guy. And it was so much like Miller's Batman that he didn't like him and was actually only pleased with Batman Begins, which is a much more tame approach to Batman than is own style.

What if Miller didn’t like B89? (Which btw you still fall short to prove) You don’t need to have the author’s approval to have your movie influenced by him.

[El Payaso]

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

Terms like "post-crisis" and "pre-crisis" DON'T work for Batman, because his portrayal was the same before Year One and after Year One. In 89 he was still the same guy who sometimes talked to civilians and walked around in BROAD DAYLIGHT!

I still dare to say there has been very different eras in comics AND movies.






Somehow reality seems to agree with me.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

His physique was the reason for that awful rubber suits. They should've got Tom Selleck, he could have worn a more faithful costume.

That’s why when they got a muscular Christian bale they went right back to spandex.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

Yeah, they didn't want to make a movie about a guy with a big chin and a broad chest, wasn't that what Burton said? So why did he do the movie? THat is what Batman is.

That definition also matches Superman. Batman is so much more than that.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

My arguments are as "weak" as yours.

I’m not sure if those qualify as arguments. It’s a bunch of refutable half-baked ideas easily debunkable.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

You are defending what you like and I am attacking what I dislike.

Presicely, you’re just giving an attack. You’re not defending your own posture. You’re just throwing punches radomly in the hope to get something right. And thus the easiness at the moment of proving you wrong.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

He was a strange human being. It's right - we can't really say if he is insane - because we - hardly - do know things about him. But that's because it's DEEP, I know!

We know a lot of things about him. It’s only the things we don’t know are as important to be in the shadowes as the ones we do know to be known.

Burton said no to spoonfeeding and once again i applaud him for that.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

It's when that psychobabble started, yes. But the answer for Batman's motivation is simple: He IS a good guy.

Nope. If for being the ‘good guy’ he would never had become a superhero if not for his parents’ death.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

Serial superhero fiction is not real the best ground for such experiments.

That depends on the vision. To limit those characters merely because they were intended for young people and kids is the one that worked for decades until it got well-worn.


But Batman’s dark side has only made the character truly ninterestiung dutring the last decades.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

That is the field for works like "Watchmen". Serial superheroes should be more treated like fairy tales and mythology characters.

Even those characters are able to be explored in a more interesting way than a 2-dimentional icon.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

What depth is for some wannabe intellectuals is often just pretentious crap to other people.

To the people who can’t get it, for sure.

[The Guard]

Question: How do you go from reading thin-plotted comic books with obvious "twists" to calling a comic book movie plot thin in comparison?

BATMAN RETURNS was a Batman movie, it just took some liberties with the source material (like every Batman movie ever made. Ever). But you simply cannot argue that many Batman elements existed in the movie.

poison code: The computer did it for him.

And you know this how? And even if that was the case, so what? The Batcomputer is a huge part of the mythology. It's still detective work. He still had to "go shopping" and figure some elements of it out.

the essence he doesn't act like Batman, he is not Batman.

Interesting. How do you figure? And be specific.

no other character is like his comic counterpart?

Also not true.

Penguin being a freak, raised by penguins??? That's stupid

He wasn't raised by Penguins, he was found by them. Good god, the Red Triangle Circus Gang raised him. Read between the freaking lines.

Nonexistant story and plot, just bits thrown around

That's also not true.

NOTHING of this is something special.

It's not supposed to be. Neither was anything in BATMAN BEGINS in terms of detective work. Neither is most of the stuff in the comics.

comic Bruce Wayne didn't have any traumas anymore

That is simply not true. His parents death haunted him, and continued to haunt him, for years. Even Pre-Crisis.

BATMAN: A guy who starts a life of crimefighting to prevent others from having the same fate he has.

Watch the first scene of BATMAN. It's right...freaking...there. Right down to the kid and his parents being accosted by a mugger.

And Michael Keaton's Batman wasn't sad all the time. He was serious. There is a difference.

sique was the reason for that awful rubber suits.

So why does Bale have one, then?

superheroes should be more treated like fairy tales and mythology characters.

Bad news. Even fairytales and mythology can be explored, and depth found in them.

[DocLathropBrown]

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

Those are TWO(!) stories. These are moments of melancholy. Thinking about the old times and how everything COULD have been. Not what they made Batman later: "Sitting depressed, lonely and brooding with weltschmerz in his batcave, out in Gotham he stands on the rooftops like a demon to bring pain to the evildoers to get his vengeance that could never be fulfilled" I mean the 70s guy who could actually smile and have fun and didn't think it's life is so bad.

The point is that you indicated that after saying goodbye at the gravesides, he didn't greive AT ALL. So you fail.

And did you miss all of the moments when Keaton smiled and had a good time with Vicki and Selina? Do you choose to be blind or something?

No, that's okay. Go on continuing to stereotype the film, because you think it helps you win.

Terms like "post-crisis" and "pre-crisis" DON'T work for Batman, because his portrayal was the same before Year One and after Year One. In 89 he was still the same guy who sometimes talked to civilians and walked around in BROAD DAYLIGHT!

It makes a Hell of a difference. Agreed that it isn't on the same scale a change as, say, Superman or Jason Todd, but a great majority of the pre-Crisis events were wiped away by (duh!) the Crisis! Therefore, Batman never made the final goodbye where he "had not shed a tear since."

And the '39 Batman didn't talk to citizens nor did he go out in the daylight. And the first interpretation must obviously be the most correct, right? So techincally, Burton had it more right then all of the comics that had him as a talkative, daylight-treading crusader!

But you'll be interested to know (as a Batfan, you SHOULD have known this) but an entire sequence for B89 that went unfilmed was a late afternoon-early dusk chasing of the Joker by Batman on horseback. So Burton and Hamm had no compulsion against putting Batman in the daylight. It only went unfilmed because Sean Young broke her collarbone while practicing horseback riding for said scene, so for technical reasons, it was cut.

His physique was the reason for that awful rubber suits. They should've got Tom Selleck, he could have worn a more faithful costume. Yeah, they didn't want to make a movie about a guy with a big chin and a broad chest, wasn't that what Burton said? So why did he do the movie? THat is what Batman is.

If you bothered to research, you'd know that there was much more to it than that. This isn't tracable to "Burton being an idiot" like you insinuate. Burton seemed to be the only person with synergy on the film, the only director under whom it would get off the ground. So without him, there would have been no theatrical Batman revival in '89, or maybe even at all if he hadn't dared to take the risk. And Burton couldn't believe a big, strapping guy would need to dress up like a Bat; ("He'd just wear a ski mask"). In Keaton, he saw not only the kind of mentality in the eyes that would be traumatized enough to do this insane thing, but also, Keaton needed ther suit to be intimidating, so it tied into the fact that Batman and Wayne were totally different people. Burton auditioned the physical type. He gave it a shot, but he couldn't see it really working. So his decision was arrived at for artistic reasons. And it's a change that is hardly worthy of complaint.

The suit was to make Keaton more imposing, yes, but the armor was just going to be there, period, to add a realistic element. It's for the same reason as Batman Begins. Burton didn't just slap us in the face with it's use. Batman is shot in B89, and he lives because of that body armor.

Keaton does not appear short in the film. He doesn't appear tall either, but he doesn't appear short at all. And please, if you're trying to tell me that you assume Keaton has a physique without muscle, slap yourself. In films prior to Batman, Keaton's average physique can be seen. He doesn't have the musculature that the suit implies, but nor is he a lightweight. He has the body of an average, athletic man. I'm sorry if you wanted a bodybuilder, but it's obvious that Burton's artistic decision is lost on you.

My arguments are as "weak" as yours.

Not really. At least my arguments are based on logic and not just emotion. It just so happens I like what I'm defending. But hey, if you don't like the thing, why try to be logical about it, right?

You are defending what you like and I am attacking what I dislike.

Fair enough.

The guys who like the movie are on your side. That's the way every discuission goes.

Are you trying to imply that you're right and we don't "get it" because we like it? You're implying that we're foolish. They're on my side because I make sense. At least, according to everyone else.

He was a strange human being. It's right - we can't really say if he is insane - because we - hardly - do know things about him. But that's because it's DEEP, I know!

Actually, if you could read between the lines, you'd know a lot about the Batman of Burton's movies. Just because he doesn't deliver a monologue about himself doesn't mean the character went undeveloped. Nearly every scene he's in serves to develop him, no matter how small or quirky. It's all in the fine art of acting. You really should take an acting class, it will expand your mind to the finer parts of a performance.

It's when that psychobabble started, yes. But the answer for Batman's motivation is simple: He IS a good guy. I am not saying that these "exploring" things were bad. But just went to far. Batman became insane, Superman became dumb (HEY! Why doesn't that dumb guy end war on earth!), Green Arrow became a Punisher-like guy.

Again, you're stereotyping. Exploration of depth of character is generic psychobabble and it makes Batman all dark and not right? Are you a secret 60s series groupie? Because they're the only ones I've seen that stick to the idea that dark and serious Batman = not right. Not that I don't love the 60s series. And Batman has never been depicted as insane, with the exception of maybe "All-Star Batman and Robin." Not even in the 90s. Sorry to disappoint you.

Serial superheroes should be more treated like fairy tales and mythology characters.

So mythology isn't allowed to be deep? Then why did you bother reading any comics past the 1940s?

What depth is for some wannabe intellectuals is often just pretentious crap to other people.

[caveman]FIRE BAD![/caveman]

No real offense intended (really!) but youre argument is just about equal to the above.

Just an example: Today a lot of people think that Batman is totally obsessed and insane. But back then he wasn't. But when people read those old comics they have this "new" take in mind. So it's difficult.

Only stupid children who know only one version of Batman think that. And the fact that you tried to stereotype me as that when I have a far more intimate knowledge of the character (which wasn't rocket science, given my arguments) is insulting.

the early-Bob Kane Batman is something else.

Something else? Like what? Let's compare....

Kane's Batman: Dark, weird vigilante that worked only by night, hardly spoke, did only what was necessary and killed occassionally.

Keaton's Batman: Dark, weird vigilante that worked only by night, hardly spoke, did only what was necessary and killed occassionally.

Yeah.... something else entirely. Even though numerous sources confirm that Burton and Hamm went directly to the Kane material for their primary inspiration. So the similarities are accidental, I'm sure.

A LOT of comic book writer thought that Burton did it wrong. Those movies aren't really loved by the comic book scene.

I haven't heard anything even remotely negative about the Burton films from anyone in the industry. Provide some links if you dare. And aside from Nolan fanboys who accept nothing else, the films are not hated in the least. So your insinuation is flawed. No doubt there are plenty that wouldn't consider them the prefurred adaptations, but the movies are not unloved by the comic scene. Or did you miss Kevin Smith, Bruce Timm, Michael Uslan, Alex Ross and others making positive comments about the films? If nothing else, the films are loved for how they helped make comics accepted in the mainstream again.

[Parents-Gun-Bat]

Originally Posted by DocLathropBrown

The point is that you indicated that after saying goodbye at the gravesides, he didn't greive AT ALL. So you fail.

And did you miss all of the moments when Keaton smiled and had a good time with Vicki and Selina? Do you choose to be blind or something?

He was a strange guy in his castle

No, that's okay. Go on continuing to stereotype the film, because you think it helps you win.

SIMPLE FACTS!

It makes a Hell of a difference. Agreed that it isn't on the same scale a change as, say, Superman or Jason Todd, but a great majority of the pre-Crisis events were wiped away by (duh!) the Crisis! Therefore, Batman never made the final goodbye where he "had not shed a tear since."

THERE is no DIFFERENCE! The real change came with ZERO HOUR. But the post-crisis Batman was the same guy the pre-crisis Batman was. Just some "window dressing" changed.

PRE CRISIS:



POST CRISIS

And the '39 Batman didn't talk to citizens nor did he go out in the daylight. And the first interpretation must obviously be the most correct, right? So techincally, Burton had it more right then all of the comics that had him as a talkative, daylight-treading crusader!

Man! Read the old stuff! He had friends and he talked to civilans in 39. He even asked for the goddamn way once! In a very friendly and polite way!

But you'll be interested to know (as a Batfan, you SHOULD have known this) but an entire sequence for B89 that went unfilmed was a late afternoon-early dusk chasing of the Joker by Batman on horseback. So Burton and Hamm had no compulsion against putting Batman in the daylight. It only went unfilmed because Sean Young broke her collarbone while practicing horseback riding for said scene, so for technical reasons, it was cut.

And now?

If you bothered to research, you'd know that there was much more to it than that. This isn't tracable to "Burton being an idiot" like you insinuate. Burton seemed to be the only person with synergy on the film, the only director under whom it would get off the ground. So without him, there would have been no theatrical Batman revival in '89, or maybe even at all if he hadn't dared to take the risk. And Burton couldn't believe a big, strapping guy would need to dress up like a Bat; ("He'd just wear a ski mask"). In Keaton, he saw not only the kind of mentality in the eyes that would be traumatized enough to do this insane thing, but also, Keaton needed ther suit to be intimidating, so it tied into the fact that Batman and Wayne were totally different people. Burton auditioned the physical type. He gave it a shot, but he couldn't see it really working. So his decision was arrived at for artistic reasons. And it's a change that is hardly worthy of complaint.

No no no. The "ski mask" escuse was just made to JUSTIFY Keaton. He wanted Keaton because he worked with him before. It was his ego. Not because he thought it made more sense. How? Even the most intimidating guy would get problems against a few people, especially with firearms.

The suit was to make Keaton more imposing, yes, but the armor was just going to be there, period, to add a realistic element. It's for the same reason as Batman Begins. Burton didn't just slap us in the face with it's use. Batman is shot in B89, and he lives because of that body armor.

And now? A fictional character is at the mercy of the writer, if he doesn't have body armor simply don't write a scene were he is hit by a bullet! BTW: In this fictional realm he could have used a more accurate Batman suit who just happen to be bulletproof because of some (magic, magic) fictional armor material that doesn't exist in our world. YOu know, like the original Batman. I guess you know that when the Joker shoots Batman in one of the early stories.

Keaton does not appear short in the film. He doesn't appear tall either, but he doesn't appear short at all. And please, if you're trying to tell me that you assume Keaton has a physique without muscle, slap yourself.

Of course he has muscles, how could he move without? In the scene at the part he appears short. And especially with Basinger and Pfeiffer. Because they are girls you know.

In films prior to Batman, Keaton's average physique can be seen. He doesn't have the musculature that the suit implies, but nor is he a lightweight. He has the body of an average, athletic man.

ATHLETIC? Keaton may be thin and cut but ATHLETIC? Doesn't athletic mean to be taller-than-average and a better-than-average built? Guys like Sean Connery or Bruce Willis are athletic guys - but Keaton?? Stop kiddin.

I'm sorry if you wanted a bodybuilder, but it's obvious that Burton's artistic decision is lost on you.

I didn't want a bodybuilder, I want an alpha male type. You know, with charisma and - you know - a big chin.

Not really. At least my arguments are based on logic and not just emotion. It just so happens I like what I'm defending. But hey, if you don't like the thing, why try to be logical about it, right?

??? Yeah.

Fair enough.

Finally!

Are you trying to imply that you're right and we don't "get it" because we like it? You're implying that we're foolish. They're on my side because I make sense. At least, according to everyone else.

This is the Batman Movie forum. This is the place of the Burton fans.

Actually, if you could read between the lines, you'd know a lot about the Batman of Burton's movies. Just because he doesn't deliver a monologue about himself doesn't mean the character went undeveloped. Nearly every scene he's in serves to develop him, no matter how small or quirky. It's all in the fine art of acting. You really should take an acting class, it will expand your mind to the finer parts of a performance.

I just think you overrate Burton's work. It's not really subtle at all. He is style-over-substance.

Again, you're stereotyping. Exploration of depth of character is generic psychobabble and it makes Batman all dark and not right? Are you a secret 60s series groupie? Because they're the only ones I've seen that stick to the idea that dark and serious Batman = not right. Not that I don't love the 60s series. And Batman has never been depicted as insane, with the exception of maybe "All-Star Batman and Robin." Not even in the 90s. Sorry to disappoint you.

60s series groupie? I hate this goddamn series! It's the reason why comic books have such a "funny" reputation. And yes, a lot of writer and fans have jumped on the "Batman is insane" bandwagon.

So mythology isn't allowed to be deep? Then why did you bother reading any comics past the 1940s?

You misunderstand. Growth and change in comic books is just something for comic book geeks. What about new readers? Why can't they enjoy Batman like I did when I was 8 years old? They cannot buy those comics because they wouldn't understand it (too much continuity, too less "status quo"). They are too violent and depressing. Actually a lot of modern comic book writers try too hard to be "mature" when in fact it's just stupid what they right. Violence doesn't equal maturity, but a lot of fans and writers never learned that lesson.

Only stupid children who know only one version of Batman think that. And the fact that you tried to stereotype me as that when I have a far more intimate knowledge of the character (which wasn't rocket science, given my arguments) is insulting.

Like I said. You (and me) cannot judge the past of Batman before we started to read. Like so many people say that Batman's early adventures are SOOOO dark and gritty when in fact they were quite harmless for the time. Batman killing was not a big thing. Superman killed. Hawkman killed. Disney characters killed. Not to speak of guys like the Shadow or the hardcore-version of him, THe Spider. Much more violence. And not to mention the EC COmics with real graphic torture. So we read our Batman now (who doesn't kill) and then read the original stories and think "What a raw guy compared to our modern version". But back then he was not really a "wild" character. The same goes for the Silver Age. This was not stupid or campy, it was just the way every comic was back then. And suddenly in the 80s and 90s they wanted to make Batman some adults-only material. That was so stupid. Batman is a very "childish" fantasy. You know, lose your parents and then become a crimefighter. THat's not the idea of an insane guy, it springs more from a kid's mind. If this happened to me and my parents I would become a crimefighter.

Kane's Batman: Dark, weird vigilante that worked only by night, hardly spoke, did only what was necessary and killed occassionally.

Keaton's Batman: Dark, weird vigilante that worked only by night, hardly spoke, did only what was necessary and killed occassionally.

again, that's superficial. "Kane"'s Batman: easy-going, Keaton's Batman: depressed and deranged.

Yeah.... something else entirely. Even though numerous sources confirm that Burton and Hamm went directly to the Kane material for their primary inspiration. So the similarities are accidental, I'm sure.

Okay, then why isn't the Joker NOTHING like the old version? why is there an Alfred? why doesn't Batman operate in NEW YORK? why isn't Bruce Wayne a charming and funny guy? Why doesn't Batman say one-liners? Why does he wear a big rubber suit?

I haven't heard anything even remotely negative about the Burton films from anyone in the industry. Provide some links if you dare. And aside from Nolan fanboys who accept nothing else, the films are not hated in the least. So your insinuation is flawed. No doubt there are plenty that wouldn't consider them the prefurred adaptations, but the movies are not unloved by the comic scene. Or did you miss Kevin Smith, Bruce Timm, Michael Uslan, Alex Ross and others making positive comments about the films? If nothing else, the films are loved for how they helped make comics accepted in the mainstream again.

okay I start with John Byrne:

The four non-Adam West BATMAN films were not about Batman, tho the first was pretty good in its own right. Consider Keaton's Batman: the armored suit was, of course, not his choice, but right away we are presented with a character we have never seen in the comics (unless, perhaps, we invoke the "inflato-Batman" suit occasionally worn by Robin). Machine guns mounted on the Batmobile were not Keaton's doing, either, but they belong to no Batman we have seen since the earliest days of his publishing history -- a there a Batman who vanished completely within the first two years.

What about Bruce Wayne, then? Minor detail -- when has Bruce ever worn glasses? Major detail -- when has Bruce ever been the assemblage of ticks and mannerisms Keaton brought to the roll?

It is an actor's prerogative to bring his own insights to a performance, but he must begin with the established character. Playing Hamlet in a clown nose and fright wig might get people paying attention, but it would add nothing to the character.

The Adam West Batman movie WAS about Batman, but. . . . well, you know.

Frank Miller said it in an interview for Batman begins that they "finally" got it right.

[BATS N' HORNETS]

i felt that BR had many unexplained holes to the story...

[Parents-Gun-Bat]

Originally Posted by BATS N' HORNETS

i felt that BR had many unexplained holes to the story...

yes. the story isn't even a story. There are just a few subplots that don't lead anywhere. You know, there is Catwoman, then there they crack the batmobile and then there is the power plant which doesn't make any sense. And so on. Like they had a lot of ideas and just added them together without making a real plot.